THE DANMAN CAN

It's hard to believe that the  Scream   franchise is 30 years old this year and that I've seen every single film in the series in its original theatrical run. I find it humorous the way fans rate/rank some of the films so  much higher than others, and the reasons they point to as to why one film is superior to another just make me chuckle. I guess that's because I think this series is just fine—outside of 1997's  Scream 2 , I don't really love any of them—so my expectations are always firmly kept in check. Anyway, I had fun with  Scream 7   (2026). You can find my reviews of the previous  Scream  films here:  1 ,  2 ,  3 ,  4 ,  5 , 6 Scream  Franchise Films Ranked

Following a similar trajectory as  Scream 2  (1997),  Matt Bettinelli-Olpin  and  Tyler Gillett 's sequel to their requel isn't as clever or as fun as the aforementioned  Wes Craven  film and isn't as good as  Scream   (2022) (or is it Scream V  now?), but it mostly satisfied my expectations when it comes to this series. There's a few tense set pieces and it keeps you guessing but the characters are more annoying this go-around (particularly their dialogue). The absence of both Neve Campbell and David Arquette  for the first time is definitely tangible as well.  Scream VI   does a decent job of tying in iconography and references to every one of the previous entries and the finale is a pretty good ride. Overall though, the film left me with a shrug, which about sums up the franchise for me—the films try so hard to subvert the previous ones, but in the end they're all part of an ouroboros formula. I'll keep watching 'em be...

Scream (2022) is the "requel" that could. I had fun with this one (much more so than my  Scream 4  (2011) revisit in 2020) and it delivered everything I could want in a Scream film (and I've kept my expectations low since  Scream 3  (2000) , which held up better than I remembered on that 2020 revisit). The new characters are all pretty good, the blend of comedy and horror is done right, the cringe-factor is fairly low, and the references to the 1996 original  are all handled well. I do think, and pardon the pun, that Neve Campbell phoned in her performance in this one though (to be fair—much like the fourth entry—she has more of a supporting role, but still…). Ready Or Not   (2019) ( review ) filmmakers  Matt Bettinelli-Olpin  and  Tyler Gillett  and writers James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick did a nice job of capturing the necessary elements that the characters in the film oh-so-knowingly expound upon when it comes to restarting a sla...

Eleven years after the supposed final entry in a trilogy (2000's  Scream 3 , my review here ), Scream 4 arrived. When I saw the film in the theater I remember liking it more than expected but I realized that I hadn't yet revisited it until this viewing. After rewatching the third entry just before this one, I ended up liking the former more than I previously did and the latter less. Series creator  Kevin Williamson  returned to write this installment, which references the 1996 original (my review here ) quite a bit. But there's no cleverness here, just sad attempts at hipness and already dated efforts to modernize the series with new technology (seriously, that dude's webcast headgear *shiver* ). Sidney also kind of takes a backseat in Scream 4 — Neve Campbell really feels like she's going through the motions in this one (as an actor and not just as the character). All the new characters/actors are particularly dislikable, which I suppose makes them easy fodder to...

Scream 3 (2000) had previously been the entry in the series that I liked the least, but after this latest rewatch that's changed. It's still not as good as the first two entries (my reviews here and here ), but as sequels go it's pretty solid. This time around, series creator  Kevin Williamson  wrote an outline which was scrapped and writing duties fell to Ehren Kruger . I must admit, it shows—it's easy to spot that a different voice penned this installment. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but the tone is certainly different. Part of the reason for that though was due to the Columbine High School massacre , which took place the year before the film was released. In response to increased public scrutiny regarding violence in media, emphasis was placed on comedy in  Scream 3 , and the violence and horror were reduced. Wes Craven 's stamp feels less present here than on the previous two films, as the direction feels pretty stock, but the dream sequences with ...

While I've always really enjoyed Scream 2 (1997)—basically as much as its predecessor—after this latest rewatch, I can now safely say that I think it's better than  Scream  (1996) (my review here ). Wes Craven  and Kevin Williamson 's follow-up more cleverly satirizes the horror/slasher genre, along with sequels—handling its meta,  whodunit nature and its characters' self-awareness in a much more satisfactory way. Partly that's because the film embraces its  Scooby-Doo   qualities and ups the craziness in a slightly campy way that still works. Introducing the film school and theater aspects was inspired as well. What's impressive is that Scream 2 managed to accomplish all this, despite being rushed out only a year after the success of the first film and with constant rewrites during production. The cold open isn't as strong as the original, but Scream 2  features better kills, which Randy ( Jamie Kennedy ) mentions is a must in horror ...

I was very much the target demographic of Wes Craven 's Scream , a film which I saw numerous times in the theater when it was released in 1996. I loved horror films, I loved a few of Craven's films, and I was 16. At the time, Scream  was welcomed and highly lauded due to its self-awareness (no one used the word "meta" back then), its satirical nature, and because it breathed life into a stagnating genre. Even as it poked fun at horror/slasher films, it clearly still had a love for them and their audience.  Kevin Williamson 's script felt incredibly clever and the film was unbelievably entertaining. But removed from the zeitgeist, in 2020, Scream  just isn't the classic for me that I know it is for many. I get why people love Scream so much and I do still think it is a good film (with one of the better cold opens ever), but I can't help but be put off by the overacting, so-so direction, and a runtime that is a tad too long. That said, I still find bits fun...

Not sure why everyone dislikes Scream 2   (1997) so much. I think it's just as good as the original.

I used to like Scream (1996) a lot when it was first released. I saw it numerous times in the theater and definitely many times on VHS and DVD. But it's just not as clever as it used to be. It's still fun, but doesn't deserve more than ***. In case you haven't guessed, I'm re-watching the first three films before I go see the fourth on Thursday.